FAA In The Hot Seat Over Boeing 737 Max Certification

This is all going to come out in the wash - with respect to who was responsible for conveying crucial information to pilots and who was not. My bet is that Boeing is going to be on the hook for some big lawsuits.

 

I keep recalling passengers who flew with me as the pilot who had mild fear of flying. They were in some cases almost not willing to fly. I took some with me and allowed them to control the airplane giving them instructions. I never allowed them to take off or land.

When they struggled with control, I resumed control of the airplane. Naturally since I am not an instructor, the could not log time as we log ours.

And now to my actual point. Since from what I am aware of, the typical commercial passenger is not very interested in make or type or model of what they will be in when the commercial pilot takes off. When I was a child, we saw P-38s in the air and had no idea what a jet fighter was.

In fact over the past weekend, I swear I saw a B-17 headed to Moffett Field. As a kid I saw many of them at the Oakland CA airport.

I tend to doubt as ignorant as passengers are, they can tell a Boeing 737 Max from the other version of the 737. Many won't be able to tell a 747 from either plane either.

One of my flight instructors used to point out the types of other airplanes on the way to run up the airplane. I caught him pointing to me a B1RD as a type. He perhaps taught nervous students that thought he actually was discussing an aircraft. I laughed since I caught his joke instantly

 

There was a new Boeing 767 that fell out of the air in 1991, all because of a design flaw....when they switched from mechanical engine controls to electronic. They tend to fall out of the sky when the thrust reverser is deployed on one engine mid-flight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda_Air_Flight_004

cockpit voice recorder: https://www.tailstrike.com/260591.htm

 

Really?!? Airlines should be able to accept the certification of the aircraft they buy. They should be safe to fly.

 

Just saying airlines should ensure their pilots are very familiar with a new aircraft before they actually do fly it.

 

Yes Boeing has the big bucks so naturally they will be a target. But no one in the FAA will be reprimanded or fired.

 

I do not see how any lawyer would sue the poor. There is no profit for the lawyer. So of course this presents a perfect chance to get very wealthy from hauling into court Boeing.

This is not the Boeing case but still a suit that would have been against the FAA.

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/04/10/palo-alto-opts-not-to-sue-faa

Palo Alto opts not to sue FAA
Officials conclude legal challenge is unlikely to succeed
by Gennady Sheyner / Palo Alto Weekly

 

You are probably right .. similar to how when the ratings agencies under the watch of the Securities and Exchange Commission was rating mortgage backed securities full of NINJA loans (No income, No Job, No assets, No Credit) .. as Triple AAA.

I couldn't help but post what is stated right on the front page of the website

https://www.sec.gov/

Not only were these loans absolute garbage (and everyone knew it - except the SEC apparently) these were adjustable rate loans = They had an initial "teaser rate" - a low rate in the first 3 years - after which the rate would double or triple.

Imagine those who were actually making an attempt - making payments of say 1500 a month and living "house poor". Then on the first month of the 4th year getting a notice that their mortgage payments would be rising to 4500 dollars a month.

This is how Paulsen was able to 4 Billion dollars on one trade. He was the one responsible for putting together one of the funds together for one of the big investment banks. He chose the worst stuff he could find - like the stuff mentioned above. Stuff he knew would default withing a short period of time (as in when the higher adjustable rates kicked in).

Then he shorted the fund he had created by purchasing Credit default swaps - where he got 100-1 leverage on his money.

The housing market crash of 2008 was the biggest ponzi scheme in modern history.

 

You're right, but to keep things in perspective, "in house" approval is a common practice in the industry, and has been for years. It is practical and has worked fine for decades.

For example, after initial certification by the FAA, we could sign off aircraft in house, BUT every 10th aircraft would have to be inspected and flown by the FAA. It worked fine.

The problem here is that Boeing cheated on the process by telling the FAA that the MAX was just a further evolution of the 737 type, and that was not true. There were significant differences, and the professional and responsible thing to do was treat it as the new design that it was, and complete all normal and required testing, including extensive flight tests. They cheated, and the FAA did not catch it.

 

Nothing is ever a problem until it becomes one. The FAA made the mistake in trusting Boeing to be honest. Now we are finding out why it really is a bad idea to let companies certify their aircraft. Aircraft accidents have a way of bringing things to light as in this particular case. I would tell younger less experienced A&P mechanics who wanted to please their supervisor by signing off on something they shouldn't have would come to light if the aircraft and crew experience a situation that merits an investigation. Even if what the mechanic signed off on wasn't the cause they are still held accountable for their wrongful actions. The two accidents are still under investigation and the real cause of the crashes has yet to be determined. I'm certain the US government will be more than happy to let Boeing take the fall.

 

I provided you with a link as to how many of the members of the committee that heard testimony last week received donations from Boeing. Damn near every single member did. Effectively Boeing owns Congress, just as virtually all other major corporations do own Congress. Likely nothing significant will come from this.

Again, in house approval authority has worked just fine for decades. My bet would be that this cheating by Boeing is the first example of such cheating.

Why condemn a process that has worked so well for so long just because of the cheaters at Boeing?

 

Do you do your own preflights or does someone else do it for you?

 

It depends. What does that have to do with the MAX issue?

 

Depends on what?

 

Right seat or left seat perhaps? Is the ramp crew composed of 20 something females? Is it 20° below with driving snow? Again, it depends.

 

But only at cruise

 

Are you asking what the FAA requirement is for the PIC doing a preflight?

 

Well tell us O' great one. What can be delegated, what is delegated in practice and what shouldn't be?

 

I didn't see an aviation background in your profile. Do you have any experience in aviation?

 

Push the stick forward and you go faster. Pull the stick back and you go slower. Push the throttle forward and you go up. Pull the throttle back and you go down. How's that?

 

You've read stick and rudder?

 

Airlines state what planes they fly, and you can easily find out what equipment will be used in your flight. The airlines that were continuing to fly the MAX version have been in the press.

Plus, every commercial flight has emergency procedures at every seat - which clearly identify the type of plane.

Assumptions that the public is as profoundly stupid as you contend are made at your peril.

 

Good catch Langewiesche.

 

Try this test. As you enter the airplane, ask passengers to explain the airplane to you Good luck

 

I am a pilot. I had to do extra to tell the difference in the 737 vs the 737 max. I have been on a good number of commercial flights and never heard passengers identify the aircraft.